Talk:American Idol/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

References Needed

In Season 9 part, someone has written the following: "Chris Golightly of Season 9 was originally selected as semi-finalist. According to reports, Chris was disqualified February 17, 2010, after already being told he was in the top 24, over an old contract. The contract had expired by the time the top 24 began to tape, but they disqualified him because he was under contract at the time of the tryouts, in violation of Idol rules. He was later replaced by Tim Urban at the last minute of the last part of Hollywood Week.

For me, this is a delicate accusation so it would be better if the writer could add the reliable reference or source for such information. Otherwise, I think It would be deleted.

Thanks. --MaJu23 (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have provided a reliable source for the information. Aspects (talk) 21:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Season 9

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the season 9 contestants chart, it has Crystal Bowersox as the winner, highlighted in blue. As of 9:49PM EDT as I'm writing this, the show is still live, and no winner has been announced. How is there the proclaimation of a winner on a semi-protected page? Whether or not she wins, is irrelavant to the fact that there is misinformation posted on this page as of right now. What happens if Lee DeWyze wins? Not done: Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

season 10

The current replacement for Simon Cowell is Gilbert Gottfried. He has currently signed on for 2 seasons with the show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billytalty (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed.Do not copy/paste. Spitfire19 (Talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Prize details

Can this article please have a section on the prizes and what contestants are supposed to get for winning. Also maybe a list of what past contestants have received for winning. I know they usually give cars to the finalists and a contract to the winner, can someone elaborate, there isn't enough information on this sub topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.124.190 (talk) 06:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we should list this somewhere even if it is just a mere footnote.--Cooly123 16:57, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Homophobia.

I noticed they roll their eyes and auto-cut whoever is obviously gay [especially the most feminine]. Can someone find sources supporting this homophobia by the organizers or judges of this show? For inclusion in the article.--Leladax (talk) 14:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Define "obviously gay." That's your perception of the contestants in question. Similarly, you may perceive them to be talented, whereas the judges may think otherwise, hence their being cut. All that said, I invite you to be bold and search out reliable, third-party sources discussing a perceived bias on the part of the show's producers and judges (keeping in mind that one of those this season is a lesbian) against those of different sexual orientations. There's already a sourced section dealing with geographical bias, and I would have no problem modifying the section to discuss other biases. Best of luck. --McDoobAU93 (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

These are about Ryan becoming more confrontational but I remember one saying something along the lines of "the gay innuendo is over with Ellen on the board" you might get something else out of them. [1] [2] Padillah (talk) 20:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

That's quite hypocritical; 'getting a gay to be forgiven of past sins', more reliable sources sure exist to give light to the case in this article. --Leladax (talk) 09:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What in the heck are you talking about? Who said anything about "getting a gay" to do anything? Padillah (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Ellen is gay. --Leladax (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't explain a thing you've said. Where are you getting the quote "getting a gay to be forgiven of past sins"? If it's not a quote, don't put it in quote marks. You've explained who you feel they got but not where you get the idea that they are using Ellen to appease, or ease tensions with, some segment of the population. At this point you are either being scatological, or trolling. If you are trolling then please go find some other way to entertain yourself. If you are simply being scatological, I implore you to calm yourself, organize your thoughts and present a coherent, cogent, sourced argument that forwards your point. I am trying very hard to take you seriously, but I find it almost impossible if all you're going to do is make innuendo and painfully obvious, yet totally tangential, statements. Padillah (talk) 13:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cost to vote

Having never voted on any of the Idol Shows, is ther a cost of any sort when you do cast a vote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwriddall (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Your question actually raises another question ... why isn't voting mentioned in the article at all? This is part of the show, so it belongs. Anybody got any ideas why it isn't here? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 15:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is one of coverage. That people vote for their favorite is not in question but that's about all anyone knows about the process. It's kept so bloody secret there's nothing else to say. As for cost, the phone-in is toll free but texting a vote carries standard messaging rates for your particular plan. Padillah (talk) 18:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Valid point, but at the same time the article mentioned nothing about how voting takes place. The article must be written such that a person who has never heard of American Idol (yes, I'm sure it's a small number of people, but still) can, at a glance, understand what the show is and how it works. I did add a couple of paragraphs detailing what I know and what is published about voting, using general terms. I believe text-message voting was added later and wasn't available in Season 1, or has it always been available? --McDoobAU93 (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Main article too long

As we get more and more seasons, the article is getting too long and unwieldy. Since there are separate articles for each season already, perhaps for the main page, perhaps we should just have a couple of paragraphs of brief description plus a table, any other information then be moved to the articles for each individual season, if there are not there already. The main article should be a place for the important information about the show, brief summaries of each seasons and related issues, and links are provided if people want to have more information on particular related subjects. Anyone wants to tidy it up? Hzh (talk) 11:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Also to add, some of the information seem doubtful - for example about the winner getting a million dollar contract. Is there a reliable source for this bit of information? Hzh (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I still think that the series finale pages need more information and the main link to that page doesn't lead anywhere. Maybe someone can trim a few words here or there to make this more consise. --Cooly123 16:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

Another Judge?

In what season was the fourth judge 1st prosoed 2,3,4 I cant find it here? And who was that woman, she apparently quit before the main shows started that season. It was on Access Hollwood as a recall. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

This article uses inconsistent formatting when it comes to naming seasons of the show. I see "Season 1" (which I believe to be correct), "Season One", and "season one". Shouldn't some consistency be brought to this?--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 21:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Judges changes

I removed the rumors of Kara DioGuardi being fired and also removed the rumors of Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler being added as new judges. All of these are based on either on the unreliable source TMZ or other sources saying TMZ is reporting it, which does not make those articles reliable sources. There have been no confirmations of any of this information from American Idol, Fox, DioGuardi, Lopez or Tyler.

I removed the unsourced addition that Nigel Lythgoe is coming back as a producer since all of the sources I have seen have said he is close to coming back which is not the same thing as actually coming back.

For all of these, there are also reports that there will be an official announcement from American Idol/Fox on Monday. If these reports are true, then we should wait until this announcement or wait until there are confirmations from any of the players involved. Aspects (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially because various other sources have stated that Nigel is allegedly seeking out Elton John and Justin Timberlake. Add that to the WTF rumors that Courtney Love (awesome) and/or Jessica Simpson (....) might judge as well, and this is all just meant to keep AI in the spotlight; possibly a ploy by the producers themselves (shocking, innit).--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though I think it's ridiculous that some people don't want to believe whats true, I agree that we should wait until Monday before anything is added to that section. Also, TMZ is not the only site confirming Jennifer Lopez and Steven Tyler's addition. So I don't know why everyone's relying on only that site.CloudKade11 (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

New info about 19 Entertainment

Does someone want to add that Universal Music now distributes the winners not sony Music? [3]. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 00:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, since the article itself didn't mention Sony in this capacity at this moment. Perhaps a new section about the commercial aspect about the show might be useful (incorporating the media sponsorship section), it has been after all the most lucrative TV show for a few years now, and it would be odd not to say something more in-depth about this aspect of the show. Things like the show relationship with UMG or Sony might go there. The problem I see is that the article is too long as it is, it really needs trimming before more sections can be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.71.58 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for major rewrite

I think the time has come for a major rewrite - as stated above, the article is no longer a good article, it's getting too long and unweildy. There is too much unnecessary information in the article and some information that should be in there currently isn't. A lot of it just needs a bit of re-organization and minor rewrite, some parts however need to be trimmed significantly.

This is my proposal for the rewrite, I think there are the major areas that should be covered -

1) Introduction - broad outline of show, aim, brief history, the main players (judges, hosts, producers, owners), success and significance as a show.
2) The mechanics of show - the format, candidates criteria, the procedure for contestant selection, the voting and elimination process, what winner can expect to get.
3) Season synopsis
4) Items directly related to the show - TV ratings, idol gives back, controversy, geographical bias, (songwriting contest?).
5) Commercial issues - ad revenue, media sponsorship, spin-offs, tie-ins, tours and other ventures, ownership.
6) Impact on the entertainment industry - major album and single-selling artists in the recording industry, major award winning artists, involvement in theatre, films. It needs a paragraph or two of introduction on this I think.
7) Miscellaneous related items - international broadcast, influence on popular culture, and any other items not included above.

The season synopsis is the longest at the moment, therefore the prime candidate for major reworking. I would suggest that all the tables for individual season in this section be removed and replaced by one single table (like this one placed as a list on the side - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Idol&oldid=305526790 it's tidy, simple and clear, and doesn't take up too much space. It probably just need a bit of information that the candidates are listed in reverse order of elimination and the date they were elimiated).

As for the synopsis itself, I think it should mention who the winner and runner-up are each season, and any other significant contestants outside of the top 2 (Daughtry, Jennifer Hudson for instance). It should also include other note-worthy events or major controversy. I think it should have only a very brief description of the achievement or post-idol career of the major contestants (for example, we really only need to mention that Jordin Sparks had big hit singles and not go into much details). Keep the synopsis to three, at most four not-excessively long paragraph, and keep them concise because they and other issues may be dealt with in greater detail elsewhere. A lot of the information now in the synopsis can be moved to the individual season, hence there may also need to be a re-write the articles for each season - it's also an opportunity to re-organise those pages because the tables in those are not consistent between each season.

In other parts it would be just a matter of moving some bits around, for example age limit currently in the introduction should be moved down to candidate criteria. If there are other pages on specific issues already, then there is no need to go into those issues in great details. Some other things needs to be tidied up such as references, and unreferenced information needs to be removed (for example I do think the 1 million dollar recording contract for the winner is untrue, even if a winner can earn that or more their first year as winner).

Many people have contribute to this article and I don't really want to tread on anyone's toes, so I'm leaving this for discussion for a month or so before doing anything. This is just my idea to start off the discussion, if anyone else has other suggestions, want to amend or add things I have forgotten, your input would be appreciated. Or if enough people don't want it changed, then this idea will be abandoned, even if I do think a major re-write is a necessity. Once we have some kind of consensus as to what to do, I hope those who have contributed to this article before will also contribute to the rewrite, and that there won't be too much of an edit war. Objections should be aired now and not later. I hope this rewrite can be completed before the next season starts. Hzh (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

steven tyler is here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Today on access hollywood, they said that to replace simon cowell, he was replaced by areosmith band member, steven tyler. can someone edit it for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.172.174 (talk) 02:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Not until Fox, 19 Entertainment, or Tyler's press agent makes an official statement. Anything else is not reliable enough for something this secretive. We're not trying to beat anyone to the punch, we've got time to get it right. Padillah (talk) 18:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Major rewriting - Part 2

I will start on the re-writing and re-organization of Part 1 soon, but just to give a head-up (so that it may be discussed) on what I intend to do after that, this is for now part 2 of the re-write, but more may be added later -

• Commercial issues - I don't know what to call this section yet, but it will encompass all commercial enterprise and revenue-related issues connected to the show (and if you have any idea, please contribute). Currently too much is focused on product placement which is just part of the equation.
  • Advertisement
  • Sponsorship
    • Direct promotion
    • Product placement
    • Product interstitials integrated into the show like the Ford adverts
  • Commercial ventures and various tie-ins
    • Albums and single releases (directly related to the show), DVD, video games, film, tours
  • Associated items
    • Spin-offs
    • Disney's The American Idol Experience
• Other items directly related to the show - most won't need rewriting much apart from the TV ratings section.
  • Idol Gives Back
  • Controversy
  • Geographical Bias
  • TV ratings - section needs major re-write. Too much is focused on later seasons and nothing on the earlier ones.
• Impact on the entertainment industry - suggestion please if you have a better title. It will focus mainly on the post-Idol success of Idol alums as to how the show has produced bona fide stars
  • Major award winners
  • Single and album sales - the will be separate from the album and single releases above as the purpose is entirely different.
    • Albums
    • Singles - a new page will be created to illustrate the success of Idol alums. The last one was wrongly deleted (its link disappeared from the main page and few knew what happened to it until it got deleted). The page itself would be notable enough simply illustrating the extraordinary success of the show in generating hit-makers to justify its existence.
  • Idols in theatre - perhaps a new page may be created, but it'll be up to others if they want to do it.
  • Films and TV

Hzh (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The only issue I can see is the "Impact" section. With 9 seasons and 234 Hollywood contestants this is just going to turn into YAFS (Yet Another Fancruft Section). If this sections is to exist it needs to be exclusive and static (or, at least, relatively static). Opening it up to theatre and TV is a bad idea. I cannot condone tracking 234 artists whereabouts in one tiny section. A simple rundown of the number of albums sold and number of #1 hits or some metric along those lines should suffice - No names. Remember, this article is about American Idol, not the contestants themselves. Padillah (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you to a large extent, the intent of having the section isn't to give detail on any individual, but to have a place which gives a broad idea of the success of contestants post-Idol (and to give links to the appropriate pages). I should say that the stated intent of the show (often repeated by the judges) is to find a star or superstar, therefore whether the show has achieved that or not is very much a legitimate (and I would also say necessary) issue to address for the American Idol page. I also think it would be hard to describe the success or otherwise without mentioning the success of Carrie Underwood and Kelly Clarkson, or the Oscar of Jennifer Hudson. We'll see how it goes, I haven't decided how to write it yet, perhaps the Major Award-winning Alumni section would be good enough. Currently a lot of the post-Idol stuff get dumped in the Season Synopsis which really have no place there, and I want to delete most of those or move them to the appropriate page.

As for the information in the theatre section, I would prefer that those be moved to a new page, but it needs a bit of work to bring any new page up to a reasonable standard, for example I noticed many missing roles that past idols have played but not in there. Perhaps someone else can do that.Hzh (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I would argue that if it's not a major award (or minor music award) we don't need to mention it specifically here. We can list all of Maroullus's theatre roles on his article page, not here. The best thing would be a synopsis of the awards won en toto - "Contestants on American Idol have garnered a total of 25 CMA's, 15 Best new Artist Awards and 1 Oscar" (fake numbers but you get the point). This keeps us from having to mentioning any given artist and sidelines the POV screaming that will accompany said mention. "Album Sales"? "Theatre appearances"? That's too much detail for an overview article like this one (much less to split those metrics out into "Album" and "Singles" sales, that's way overboard). I am firmly against the idea that it's our role to legitimize the series. We simply need to make note that it is there and people were on it. If the people end up being notable they'll get there own article. Padillah (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with you on most points, except one crucial thing - it isn't about legitimising the show, it is about the fact that it is arguably the biggest show in US TV history (and would remain so for many years to come even if it ends next year), the article would need to say certain things about the show's impact (and it has significant impact on the entertainment industry), whether anyone likes the show or thinks it worthless is completely irrelevant. It would be the job of wiki to describe how it is the biggest and what effect or impact it has, nothing more, nothing less. It would be a bit of TV history that future generations would be interested to know. And to describe it you would need some details, and I would agree with you that the details would not be within the main page, the function of the main page would be to direct people to other pages where such details may be found. The problem for things like, say, idols in music theatre is that there isn't a separate page for that, so until it is created, it'll probably have to stay on the main page.Hzh (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It was the line "...whether the show has achieved that or not is very much a legitimate ... issue." that made me question why we are trying to establish what the show has achieved. A simple list of contestant awards (and maybe some amalgamated record sales numbers) should be quite enough. I can see the major awards and milestones being mentioned (Hudson's Oscar, Daughtry's sales numbers, etc.) but not theatre roles (unless they've won a Tony, of course). I see no way to reconcile Hudson's Oscar with a mention of Ejay Day's cruise ship job. It just doesn't seem right.

A "legitimate issue" for the page to address is not the same as "legitimising" the show. In any case, the show doesn't need legitimising. Its significance in US TV history warrants, I should say demands, at least a reasonable account of its impact.Hzh (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Major rewriting - Part 3

Still finishing up on Part 2 of the rewrite, so it'll take a week or so before Part 3, the final part of rewrite, starts. Just giving a head-up on what will be done so any objection can be raised now instead of getting into an edit war later. The Season Synopsis will form the bulk of the rewrite, I hope the size of the page would drop below 100K after the trimming of this section.

• Table - As mentioned before, I intend to remove all the tables and replaced it with a single table on the right similar to this one (albeit somewhat narrower) -
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Idol&oldid=63627105#Season_synopses
  If anyone feels particularly attached to those tables, then do air your objections with reasons for keeping them. I don't object to keeping them, but I will give my rationale for removing them - they add very little informational content but add significantly to the apparent bulk of the article (I estimate the tables to take up around a sixth to a fifth of the visible space). The only extra information they tell us is who the bottom 2/3 are, and most of those are completely uninteresting - the only interesting bits are three divas being at the bottom 3 in Season 3, and Adam Lambert/Kris Allen in Season 8, and those will likely be mentioned in the text in the rewrite. It should also be noted that the 3 picked out need not be the lowest vote-getters unless Ryan Seacrest specifically said they were at the bottom. Nigel Lythgoe has admitted that, so the tables themselves may be misleading without further clarification.
  A single table on the right would be neat and tidy and takes up little space. Alternatively that single table may be split into separate season so that each will be in line with the individual season, as here with the tables on the right -
  http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Idol&oldid=14252661#Season_synopses
  although I think once the text has been trimmed, each season synopsis should be roughly aligned in space with each individual season for the single table.
• The text - there would not be more than 3 or 4 relatively short paragraphs (as I intend the text to be roughly in line with individual season in the single table). Each season will mention winner and runner-up, significant events, major controversy that season, or anything notable. All information about the post-Idol career of individual contestant will be deleted or moved to the appropriate page, apart from brief mention (i.e. single short sentences) of major artists to emerge that season (e.g. Carrie Underwood as a major recording artist, Jennifer Hudson as an Oscar-winning actress). Extended description should be kept to the pages for individual season.
• The overall look would be similar to the first link, table on the right, a picture (a small thumbnail only) of each season's winner on the left, text filling up the rest. The early pictures were removed because they weren't of free use, but I think there are now free images of all winners.

The rest of the rewriting would be just final tidying up of bits and pieces. There are other sections I was thinking about adding like influences and cultural references, but I think I'll leave that for another time. One thing I have to say about the Impact section of Part 2 (which I have yet to start) to address the concern that it may become a fancruft section - firstly is that it is a relevant section because it is the stated intent of the show to create stars, therefore who emerged as a star due of their exposure on that show is very much a necessary part of the American Idol page. Secondly I hope I have shown that American Idol is now one of the biggest shows, and by now arguably THE biggest show, on US TV history. As such, it is necessary to describe the impact of such a show like this, which would trump any concern about fancruft, because the page would fail in its purpose if it doesn't give a reasonable account of how it impacted on the entertainment industry. Nevertheless there are good reasons to limit what should be put in there, so if any names get mentioned (which I haven't decided yet to do), if will be only be of the select few, and only very brief mention. Hzh (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to suggest that the tables be reduced to winner and runner-up. Or, top three at most. We are coming up on the 10th season, that's 100 entries if we list the Top Ten, and growing. Even with mention of the top three that's still thirty entries of information that's in the text already. 12.193.46.150 (talk) 13:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC) <--That's me. I got logged out during typing Padillah (talk)

I don't mind if someone else wants to do that, but I think it might be a step too far for most people. Most would regard those who won a place in the finals as significant contestants of the show and therefore need to be listed, and listing them would not take up too much space. Also that there are many contestants not in the Top 3 who have achieved varying degree of notability, from Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson (high level of notability) to Josh Gracin and Kellie Pickler (middling notability), to Chris Sligh and Allison Iraheta (low level of notability). While Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson would be mentioned in the text, the rest won't be and it would be wrong not to have their names listed. Some may consider for example Kellie Pickler to be more notable in terms of future success than Diana DeGarmo or Justin Guarini, so it would be hard to make an arbitrary cut-off point of Top 2 or Top 3. Personally I foresee only 2 or 3 seasons more of the show, unless it gets to something like 20 seasons then we might consider cutting the name list back drastically.Hzh (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You'll pardon me for thinking Daughtry and Hudson don't need this article to establish their notability. In fact it seems more appropriate to me to mention those in the above section on impact rather than a simple call-out. I don't see how a simple call-out would tip the scales. In fact it could be argued (especially for some of the lesser know finalists) that even a simple call-out is undue weight given their complete lack of notoriety (i.e. Christina Christian). We have the "Impact" section mentioned above to take note of specific artists if they warrant a particular mention. Simply because they were on the show doesn't seem like enough of a reason to me. Padillah (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

They are two different notabilities - one is the notability for winning a place in the finals on the show (this is entirely within the context of the show itself, and most would argue this simple fact wins a contestant the right of a mention on the page), the other is notability post-Idol (Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson, still deciding if I'll be putting their names in the impact section). One may influence the other - Jennifer Hudson getting voted off became even more noteworthy because of what she has achieved after the show. Cutting off at Top 2 or top 3 would be too stringent a criterion purely within the context of what happens on the show alone, and cutting off at Top 2 or 3 is completely arbitray within the context of the wider perspective. Having their names mentioned isn't a problem now as I see it, since size of the page isn't too much of an issue right now when the Synopsis section will be trimmed. It'll certainly be something worth considering if the show continues for many more years - it may make the page too bloated and we'll have to be more stringent deciding what goes into the page.Hzh (talk) 08:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Major rewriting to commence

There doesn't seem to be any objection to the idea of a major rewrite, so I'll go ahead and get the ball rolling. Anyone of course can still object and part of the rewrite may be suspended while the discussion continues, or it may be abandoned completely. To start with I'll make some minor edits, tidying up references, rephrasing or rewriting sentences (for example things that were true when they were written may not be true now), and delete some unsourced assertions (the million dollar contract part will be deleted unless someone has a concrete source). These minor edits will last for a week or so before the major edit starts to give people time to discuss the more major changes. If you have suggestions or different ideas please do contribute. And please do contribute to the re-writing since I will not be able to it all.

The major edit part 1 -

• Introductory text - this may be trimmed down, per guidelines Wikipedia:Lead_section#Introductory_text that there should not be lengthy paragraph or over-specific descriptions. The coming and goings of the judges will be moved down to the judges section. Other parts will also be moved elsewhere (e.g. Brian Dunkleman is too minor a character in the show history to merit a mention in the introduction). The major points in the introduction will be -
  • Very brief outline of show.
  • Aim of show, winners.
  • A few key personnel - the original 3 judges, current judges, Ryan Seacrest.
  • Why the show is significant - one of the biggest shows, success of the show in producing stars.
• Show overview (not entirely sure how to organize this or the following sections/sub-sections yet.)
• Brief history
• Key personnel - Judges and presenters (including guest judges - e.g. Quentin Tarantino in Season 3), the subsections of former and current personnel may be removed. Producers and music directors, etc.
• Contestants and winner selection -
  • Contestant eligibility criteria
  • Initial rounds of audition
  • Hollywood rounds
  • Semifinals - may remove subsections of different seasons.
  • Finals and finale
  • Voting process
  • Rewards for winners/finalists

(Note that the season synopsis may be the section getting the most drastic cut, so it may be done last. Please see previous description of what may be done so you can air your objections before anything is done to it.) Hzh (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Go for it -- the article desperately needs the kind of trimming and chopping you've described above. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The section about the voting process needs to detail how the votes are tabulated and the oversight (ie. third party) employed in validating the results.
--K10wnsta (talk) 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if the information about they tabulated the votes are out there, although it is likely to be just a simple matter of recording hits. It's Telescope's own technology that counts and tabulates the votes, so there is actually no independent oversight about the voting result.Hzh (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite

The rewrite is almost finished. A few more things needed to be done, but which may be done over a long time (or perhaps by others) -

• The impact section needs beefing up, critical reception part in particular. Whether people think American Idol has good or bad impact on TV, music, theatre or various other fields is something that should be expanded a bit more. This is one of the more important part of the article.
• The musical theatre sub-section also needs beefing up so it can be moved to its own page. The information in there is only of secondary interest to the show itself even if it serves to illustrate the impact the show has on musical theatre. Ideally there should be just a short paragraph or two about it on the American Idol page with a link to its own page, but at the moment there isn't enough there to justify its own page. Perhaps merging information about TV and film works by Idol alumni might beef it up a bit.
• Other sections might still get trimmed. At the moment it is not quite down to 100K yet.
• As anticipated, some are now objecting to removing the multiple tables. I think it should be repeated so that it's clear - the side table was the original table, it was the multiple tables that was added unnecessarily and duplicated information in the side table. It is actually for those who want the multiple tables to give good reasons as to why they should be there at all. As I said, I have no objection to keeping the multiple tables, but a good reason as to why they should be there is a necessity for them to stay. At the moment the multiple tables are adding a lot of apparent bulk to the page without adding much useful information. It is not good enough to say that the side table looks messy, because that's just a personal opinion, to me it looks much better and neater, it is the multiple tables that make the page looks bloated. If it doesn't look good to you, it could very well be a browser or resolution issue, and that can be sorted.
• A final word about the rewrite - it is necessary because many people rely on the page for information about American Idol. It is not acceptable when the some specific bit of information about American Idol has its only source in wiki, and that gets repeated all over the web. Wiki needs to be a reliable place for information, not odd bits of info that someone might have vaguely heard or made up. For good or bad, American Idol has its place in TV history as arguably its biggest show, and it needs a good account written about it, rather than some random bits of information fans tacked on to this page.Hzh (talk) 11:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Objection to rewrites

I do not see why you would suddenly mount major rewrites to the page when the old version was perfectly fine. The previous version was less clunky and more organized. And why on earth is that side table back? - that was removed long ago, because it was seen as a distraction. Looking at your disscussion, you seem to have made this decision by yourself, and carried through with little negotiation. I find that the page is now a mess, worse than what was there. Is it possible at all to return to the current section and make gradual adjustments from there? Can we work to make the previous page acceptable without such major changes? - Cartoon Boy (talk) 22:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprise that people only now discover what has been intended for more than a month. I left it for discussion for more than a month because I thought there might be objections, but no one did (how is one to negotiate when no one objected? And for a month?). I have no idea what is your objection is to the rewrite, if it is only about the tables, then make that clear, because the rewrite has been going on for a few weeks already and no one complained. The old version of text wasn't fine, it was full of mistakes, false information, poorly written passages, information that should be there but was not, information that's there but shouldn't. The page is fine now, barring a few minor issues.

The table is actually only a minor part of the rewrite, although I did foresee some people might get upset about it, which is why I left it for discussion for a long time to do it last. If the problem is the way the table looks, it is likely to be specific to particular browser or screen resolution issue. Those can be sorted, for example, using separate tables on the side. Those old multiple tables looked bloated. Look back at the old discussion about the side table - the complaint was the it duplicated the information. Once you remove the multiple tables, this is no longer an issue. The single side table WAS the original one. The other multiple tables were the ones that was added unnecessarily.Hzh (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't serve any purpose to just make general statement about personal perception what is clunky or organized or not, because I have really no idea what exactly are the objections. We need to get down to the specifics. Just so that this can be a useful and fruitful discussion, these are the issues to be addressed (add more if you think I missed something), and if you have objections, then it would be more useful to discuss in specific terms under these issues -

• 1) Style and appearance - Style is not much of an issue to me, for things like whether it should be "season 1", "season one", "Season 1" or Season One" as well as other issues, someone just needs to go over the whole page and make everything consistent and follow wiki manual of style. As for things like whether there should be pictures (like those of winners) or not, I think it would be good to have them because they break up the monotony of the page.
• 2) Organization - I have no objection as to how sections or subsections are organized, so long as they make sense. For example I put Idol Gives Back in the Show overview section, but it could very well be somewhere else. I think however it's better not to have just random sections that doesn't have any relation to what comes before or after.
• 3) Content - Anything that goes into the article should be accurate, well-sourced, pertinent to the topic and reasonably succinctly written. For example, half the things in the Season synopsis before the rewrite were about post Idol career of idols, and whatever those are, they are not season synopsis. In fact once you remove all the unrelated stuff there is very little content left. So either change the title of the section, or cut back drastically and rewrite the whole thing (which is what I did for the synopsis). If you prefer the old content, then you have to make sure that they fit the criteria of accuracy, pertinence, succinctness, and having a good source.
• 4) The tables - I will make a separate a discussion later, but just to state that I don't feel any attachment to any particular table, just wanting to make the page look less bloated. I will however give fair warning that I will put in the long side table back in a couple of days - this is not being confrontational, but just to raise awareness to other people that the discussion is going on (because many people don't bother checking what's being discussed and only see when something major changes), so they can make their views known. It WILL be reverted to the multiple tables a few days later. I will also try other tables and see if they work better. I think it is incumbent upon those who want to keep those multiple tables to come up with good reason as to why they should be kept.Hzh (talk) 10:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Hard to get any idea what the objections when the those who complain won't say what exactly they don't like. Anyway, if people don't like the changes, they can be easily revert back to the old one. Many of the things I put in are things that I think would make an article complete, and not strictly necessary. For example history, or a lot of the revenues information. Remove those if you don't like those, but the parts I would ask people not to remove are the Impact and Critical Reception sections. Those are some of the most important parts of the article, in fact those are the section that should be expanded on. When the show has finished its course and memory of it fades, they are what gives those reading in the future some idea of the show's significance and place in its contemporary popular culture and TV hisotory so they can assess the show properly. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

New Tables

Just giving a heads-up that I will be removing multiple tables with Top 2/3 listed later today or tomorrow. This is temporary, just to alert people of the major changes, so that they can come and discuss what they like or don't like (most don't seem to notice something major has gone on until the tables changed). Please leave it up for at least a few days and don't keep reverting. It will be reverted after a few days or a week, and then left as it is for at least a couple of months for discussion before any decision will be taken as to what to do.

I have already done the long side table, check here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Idol&oldid=386636573#Season_synopsis

So I'll try one with multiple side tables next. Please give your opinion as to which one you prefer once I've put that up later.

ETA, here's the one with multiple side tables - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Idol&oldid=387193530#Season_synopsis

Just a few notes as to why it is done - previous discussion on the tables concluded that the information were duplicated by having 2 kinds of tables, so logically it should be one or the other. The long side table was the one elected to be removed, for really no apparent reason, because the side table was the original one, it was the multiple table with Top2/3 that was added unncessarily later. I have stated already why the multiple table with Top 2/3 is not the preferred one, but just to restate them -

• It adds a lot of apparent bulk without adding significant content. As we get more and more seasons, the page is getting to look very bloated.
• It can be misleading - for example Nigel Lythgoe admitted once that Syesha Mercado wasn't at the bottom 2/3 but was placed there without specifying that she was at the bottom. People were really only at the bottom when specifically said to be so by Ryan Seacrest, so someone needs to go through past result shows to check that those listed to be bottom 2/3 were actually so.
• The side table(s) looks neater to me.

Now looking neater is just a personal opinion, so if others think otherwise, then do let us know. If most prefer the multiple table with bottom 2/3, then it will stay. It is however possible to have bottom 2/3 tables that don't take up so much space, I'm considering a horizontal table, and there are other options.

Also that if people aren't happy about the rewriting, please give your opinions in the section above. Do give details rather than just saying it looks messy or clunky (which specific part is messy/clunky for example, or how) so that we know exactly what the problem might be, and can change it to suit most people. The point of this exercise is to improve the page, and everyone's opinion would be welcome.Hzh (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC) Edited Hzh (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:BRD, now that the addition of the long table and the removal of the seasons' bottom three charts has been challenged, there needs to be consensus on this issue. Simply saying that you are going to change it soon, when no consensus has been reached is not the right way to go about the issue with the promise to revert them to the way it is now, especially when you provide links to previous versions that have the long table. It has been less than three days since the objection was brought up with no third opinion and he changes are not so necessarily that they need to be made immediately.

The long table was added to the article in January 1, 2004, [4] and the bottom three charts were added on April 2, 2004, [5]. So to me saying that the long table has been here longer is not a compelling reason to keep it, since the bottom three charts were added shortly later, plus have been in the article for a greater time period, since the long table was removed for over three months.

As can be seen in the earlier discussion, I do not have a strong opinion favoring one chart over the other, my problem was the fact that the article was very long and that both tables are unnecessary. The people who kept adding the long table were not removing the other tables. There was an apparent reason for keeping the bottom three charts over the long table in that it contained all of the information of the long table plus additional information about the bottom three's making the long table redundant to the bottom three tables. Aspects (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm providing a different way of doing the tables. It is not the same table. The problem as I see it is that most people don't realized something major is happening until they see it, and it is difficult to get a consensus when very few people bothered to offer an opinion.

That argument wasn't actually keeping the long table this time. The question was why the long table was removed over the multiple ones in the first place. That time has elapsed since it was removed is neither nor there. The original argument for removing it was faulty, so there was actually no argument at all for removing it. Any discussion about removing table then should have been about removing the multiple tables because it duplicated what's already there.

The problem now I see is that something needed to be done because the page is getting too bloated, but it is more the way it appears to be bloated - the many tables just take up too much space. I do think having tables of some kind is useful, so I'm offering a solution to the problem. What I'll do is make the new tables, revert immediately and give a link here, so that those who want to discuss what may be done can have a look at the other options. It is hard to see how things might appear without actually seeing it. ETA, the tables are now done and can be seen in the links above. Hzh (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I should also add I don't see at any point was the bottom three ever mentioned as a reason for keeping the multiple table. There doesn't appear to be any reason mentioned why the multiple tables should be kept apart from the false claim that the long one duplicated the information in the multiple tables (it's the multiple table that duplicated the long one, not the other way round).Hzh (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Here is another option to consider if we want to keep the Bottom 2/3 information. I think this is clearer (doesn't really need to say Bottom 2 or 3 because it is quite apparent), and doesn't take up too much space. I use Season 2 as an illustration because of the unusual circumstance of Corey Clark elimination, also that I think the dates in the table on the main page are wrong unless they changed the result shows to Tuesday. It is just a simple table done quickly, and can be refined later if there is any element in there that's not quite right.

Season 2 2003 Elimination table (with dates of elimination and bottom 2 and 3)

Winner

May 21

May 14

May 7

April 30

April 23

April 16

April 9

April 21

March 26

March 19

March 12

Ruben Studdard

Clay Aiken

Kimberley Locke

Josh Gracin

Trenyce

Carmen Rasmusen

Kimberly Caldwell

Rickey Smith

Carmen Rasmusen

Corey Clark Disqualified

Julia DeMato

Charles Grigsby

Vanessa Olivarez

Kimberley Locke

Ruben Studdard

Josh Gracin

Carmen Rasmusen

Kimberly Caldwell

Trenyce

Kimberly Caldwell

Corey Clark

Julia DeMato

Trenyce

Trenyce

Kimberley Locke

Kimberley Locke

Rickey Smith

Julia DeMato

Kimberley Locke

¹ None eliminated this week due to Corey Clark disqualification.

Hzh (talk) 16:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

To add my two cents, I think the elimination tables are excessive and redundant, since each season summary includes a link to its specific article, which contains all that information. The information most people want to know in an article summarizing the series is who won and did anything unusual happen. By the way, I think the photos of the winners in the season summaries is a great idea, so thanks to whoever did that! --McDoobAU93 16:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, this is however what I fear- i.e. few people bother to say what they think, so it is difficult to get any kind of consensus. I think the situation is extraordinary because no one actually said they like those tables, they are there simply because someone kept putting them there. For example, for some time the one long side table was the only one there - here on 10 June 2006 [6], and stayed as the only table until the guy who did the multiple tables put it back again exactly a year later on 10 June 2007 [7]. The reason given so far for deleting the side table was that there was a consensus that it was distracting (false), and that it duplicated the information (false again, it's the multiple that was doing the duplicating). So no valid reason has actually been given for deleting the side table. I think the tables need to be replaced because they are taking up too much visible space, but just in case someone likes having the bottom 2/3 information, I'll replace them with the less bulky long horizontal tables shown above in a week or so (so object now if you don't want them changed, but please give a valid reason). I hope then it will then attract the attention of people reading this page and come here and give a preference. We can then decide in a few months' time what to do when enough people have given their opinions. Since a few people have already suggested removing all the tables from the synopsis section, then that would be also be an option. Hzh (talk) 15:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Choose your tables

I just put up some tables to replace the ones that look to be too bulky. They are largely identical in informational content, with the exception that I omitted the number of times the contestants have been on bottom three - they seem to be more confusing than helpful, but if other people like them they can be easily put back. There may be issues with the table not looking right with different browsers (say, the color may not be right) or screen resolution (the table can get scrunched up in low resolution), but those can be fixed, just need to be informed of any problem. If people don't like them, please leave them up for at least a while, the intention is to let people be aware of the different approaches available and get them to come here and choose the kind of tables they prefer (or no table if they so wish).

These are the options -

• 1) The long horizontal ones with bottom 2/3- [8]
• 2) The old ones with bottom 2/3 - [9]
• 3) Single long side table - [10]
• 4) Multiple long side table - [11]
• 5) Single table such as one shown above with other information - [12] , or something very simple with just a list of name of winner, or make your own suggestions.
• 6) Remove all tables from Season Synopsis.

Select the ones you want, we can choose the one most preferred in a few months time. Let's hope that people will take the trouble to choose the one they want rather than just reverting. Make your preference known rather than have something stays there just because they are there. The wish is to get as many responses as possible, however, there is always the problem the few people will respond. A few people have already indicated they prefer to have no table in Season synopsis, so that would be option to go for if others choose not to respond. Personally I would go for multiple side tables or the long horizontal ones if people want bottom 2/3 information. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I am reverting back to the seasons' bottom three tables since this has been in discussion for a while with no consensus yet for any type of change. I can see us having a hard time coming to some sort of conclusion when there are so many options, but I hope this will get resolved.

1) Currently this is the worst option. Every elimination table I have seen on Wikipedia has the first eliminations to the last eliminations go from left to right, so this version seems to me the most confusing. I do not like the names being split across multiple lines and I think this table does not handle the unusual circumstances of two people being eliminated and Corey Clark's disqualification very well.

2) In a choice between this and any other table, this should win due to it containing more information than the other ones.

3 & 4) I like the consistency of width in 3 but I like the placement better in 4.

5) I could only see this table working if there were no season synopsis and if some of the tables were eliminated to make the other finalists names bigger. The only Wikipedia article I have seen it list all of the finalists is America's Next Top Model.

6) Probably the way to go since the article keeps longer and longer with each season and all of the elimination information is located in the individual seasons.

So in conclusion, I am for removing the tables from the article, but if I had to make a choice of a table I would choose a combination of #3 and #4 using #4's placement with each of the season's subsections, but having the consistent width of #3 so the finalists names are in one line, which looks like using Constantine's as the longest finalist name. Aspects (talk) 14:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm reverting because that isn't the point of the tables. It is meant to get people interested to come an give an opinion so we CAN have a consensus. At the moment it is impossible to get a consensus, it just a few people giving opinions, and any reasons given for keeping the old table are the wrong reasons. We are stuck with something that no one has actually said they like, isn't that a completely undesirable situation?

The width issue of 4 can be easily fixed, I don't see any difference in width in my browsers, although I suspect other people might see a difference, it's an issue easily fixed when brought to attention.

Objection based on ordering of contestants name seems odd to me because that is something easily fixable. And the reason for keeping #2 option is even odder when I said that any information omitted can be easily put back in.

And I would agree that #6 is the way to way when a few people have already indicated that is what they wanted, but let not that be the chosen route simply because others are not aware of the options available.Hzh (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to stop changing the tables per WP:BRD, the tables are being discussed and they should remain the way they were once the new tables were challenged and should stay that way until there is a consensus. A contested change should not be kept just to get people's opinions of the change because that is not how Wikipedia works.

The tables were kept because of a choice between the two tables, the bottom three tables contained all of the information of the long table plus had additional information, making the long table redundant to the bottom three tables. This is not wrong, but consensus can change to find a better table or no table at all, which is what we are doing here.

If you want more people to join the discussion here, go through the history and send messages to some of the more active editors in the article, start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Idol series or place a Wikipedia:Requests for comment to see what people that do not normally edit this article think. Aspects (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd way to go about it, invoking WP:BRD when you were the one who kept deleting the side table without giving reasons, and only giving reasons after someone else mentioned it (and gave the wrong reasons, the multiple table were put in back at least twice duplicating the other table), why not then but now? WP:BRD is not there for you to justify your own wrong decision and left us stuck with that decision.Hzh (talk) 16:25, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I always gave a reason for removing the side tables, which was the previous, and at this point still current, consensus found earlier in this talk page. Would you please stop saying we were doing things for the wrong reasons? I just explained in my last comment how the consensus was formed and how this consensus was not wrong.

Would you please stop edit warring and let people talk about it? I gave you multiple options to increase the participation in this discussion and instead you decided to revert again without even an explanation this time, basically calling my edit vandalism. Aspects (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Justification after the fact is not consensus. Read back, and see how many actually agreed with your decision. There were probably more people who expressed dislike of those tables. There was no consensus.Hzh (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For some shows that give all the finalist name - see Australian Idol and The X Factor (UK). These are similar shows, where a finalist may be given a recording contract that will launch their career, and are actually those that are comparable.Hzh (talk) 11:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A number of people have previously expressed their preference, I think it is now necessary to take stock and give a count of these preferences so we know where we stand -

• 1) For removing all tables -
  • McDoob
  • Aspects
  • Padillah - suggested reducing table to top 2, since the top 2 are already mentioned in the text, it would make the table redundant. I would put him or her down on those for removing all tables for the time being until he indicates otherwise.
• 2) Prefer side tables -
  • Cartoon Boy - clearly expressed a preference here [13], will leave him here unless he has changed his mind.
  • Hzh - this would be my preference if I have to choose, with the long horizontal one as a second choice if bottom 2/3 is deemed necessary by others.
• 3) For the old multiple table -
  • Turian - did not actually state he wanted the multiple table, only did not want duplication of information, but I'll leave him here for the time being.
  • Frazzler9 preferred a modified version of the old table, but indicated that a strong dislike of the old multiple tables here [14]. He or she should really be in another category.

Please let us know if anyone above does not think it's the position they held or they have changed their mind, or add others if I have missed them. Those who haven't stated a preference please do so, we really need more people to express an opinion.

• Note that although I put down two for the old multiple tables, no one has actually said they like it or stated a clear preference for it. Currently there are more people who would prefer removing all tables, while this is not my preference, I would happily switch position if the sitiuation doesn't change in a couple of months time. Then there would give a clear majority in favor of removing all tables, therefore it would be the consensus and that should be the postion to take.
• Note also that we got into this impasse due to some false assertion by Aspects that the removal of the bottom 2/3 tables has been challenged. This is false as it was quite clear that Cartoon Boy had stated a preference for the side table, and refused that say that it was the table that he objected to and was only said he was challenging the rewrite. The use of WP:BRD was completely spurious. A number of other false assertions have also been made by Aspects to support his case, such as that there was a consensus, as we can see [15], there was none, since both McDoob and Cartoon Boy did not state they wanted the multiple tables (neither did Turian if we want to be accurate). This whole argument for keeping the multiple tables is false, and completely wrong when we examine the history of this article. It is unacceptable for people to keep using false rationale and assertions to maintain the status quo, and throwing the rule books at people only when it suits them.Hzh (talk) 13:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Deleting tables

Seems like most people don't care enough about the elimination table for each seasons to make their opinion known. It's not really what I wanted, but I would now change my vote to deleting all tables, and that would give a clear majority for removing. I will do this in a week or so time. If anyone wants to change their vote and keep those tables, please do it now. If others want to keep them or have a different opinion, please air them too, but if no one objects, then those tables will go. I should also say that this is not something permanent - wiki always changes, if there are people who noticed the missing table, miss them and want them back, then they can always cast their vote and the tables can be put back in a few months' time when we reassess the consensus opinion. Hzh (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Tables deleted. I will repeat again that nothing in wiki stays permanent, so if you want the tables back, or something else in their place, please make you choice known. Here are the choices again, and you are free to make you own suggestion -

• 1) The long horizontal ones with bottom 2/3- [16]
• 2) The old ones with bottom 2/3 - [17]
• 3) Single long side table - [18]
• 4) Multiple long side table - [19]
• 5) Single table such as one shown above with other information - [20] , or something very simple with just a list of name of winner, or make your own suggestions.
• 6) Remove all tables from Season Synopsis.

We'll review the situation in a few months' time.Hzh (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as there are elimination tables in the individual season articles, they certainly don't need to be here. Good job! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 15:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

• I actually perfered that the tables be there, as it apparently adds more information to otherwise short summaries for each season. I suppose I can see why this was done, though, and if I'm the only one who objects by the time we review, by all means, keep it the way it is. I'll just have to get used to it. - Cartoon Boy (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I preferred the tables being there as well. I Like Choice #1 because it gives us the info without adding too much verticle length to the article, though I think #2 flows a little nicer. However, should the original tables (Option 2) ever go back into effect, I'd like to suggest that we get rid of the multiple rows that say "Bottom Three/Bottom Two", especially in cases like the Top 11 of Season 6 where we had to add in a new bar for "Bottom Two" and then the following week insert yet another bar for "Bottom Three" again, as they disrupt the flow of the table imo. Instead there should just be one bar at the top that says "Bottom Vote-Getters" or something. I think it's fairly obvious that if there are only two names in a row for a week, then it means only the bottom two were announced, and same with when just the eliminated contestant is announced. MarkMc1990 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's 4 for tables and 4 against, excluding me. I don't want to be the tie-breaker, so I'll just leave this going for longer and see if anything changes in 6 months or a year. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new page for Idol alums in film, TV, and theater

At the moment the Idols in musical theater section look to be the odd one out in the page. I don't want to delete it without putting it somewhere else first, so I'm proposing to create a new page for American Idol alumni in Films, TV and theater.

I don't know what the support is for such a page, and I don't want to put in the effort to do something that might be deleted, so I'm canvassing opinions for this idea. If there is support for this (or there is no objection), then I might do this in a few months or whenever I have the time, although someone who feels like doing it would be welcome to create this page themselves. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Controversies

What about adding the sex tape controversies to the "controversy" section, such as the sex tape of olivia mojica, where samples were released to the public, but a full video was somehow rescinded before distribution... Also isn't there another sex tape of an idol contestant? User:fufufufufufuf 11:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC) WHAT no white people that can entertain people im not racist but all black groups i know they have white people there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.154.220 (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

AfD of article interest

American Idol Themes has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Idol Themes, please take time to join the conversation there. Aspects (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

New film, TV and theater page created, the music theater section will be deleted.

Please note that a new page for American Idol alumni in film, television and theater has been created. The "Idols in musical theater" sub-section in the American Idol main page will be deleted soon once the new page has stabalized. Hzh (talk) 16:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

The music theater subsection has now been deleted. While the success of American Idol contestants post-Idol is relevant to the show since it is the stated aim of show to create stars, the detailed listing of the Idol alums acting roles is not helpful in a page that is already cluttered up with information. The main page should be largely reserved for items directly related to the show and in general, the post-Idol career of contestants should only be mentioned in broad terms and only the more significant successes of particular alum should be mentioned in this page. A page specially created for Idol alumni in film television and theater is therefore necessary to keep the page in reasonable shape. Hzh (talk) 09:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Picture Format

I find it hard to believe American Idol is broadcast in 1080i format when Fox only broadcasts HD programming in 720p. There is no source for the assertion Idol is broadcast in 1080i, but it is well known Fox boradcasts HD in 720p. Either source it or remove it. 209.254.200.110 (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

million dollar record deal / first option to sign contestants - source?

There's considerable interest in what rights 19 Entertainment (and Sony/BMG) have over the contestants (rumor has been that 19 has a management and recording option on all Top 10 Idols in Season 8). The statement below appears in the article but I didn't see any source or footnote, shouldn't it be verifiable if it's in Wikipedia? Sorry if I haven't done this correctly.

"The winner receives a one million (US) dollar record deal with a major label, and is managed by American Idol-related 19 Management. In some cases, other finalists have also been signed by the show's management company (who has first option to sign contestants) and received record deals with its major label partner."

Already fixed.Hzh (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Hiatus?

How can American Idol be on hiatus? It's currently taking auditions for the next season?

Obsolete thread. Hzh (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Season 11

S?hould there at least be a little section about the upcoming season? 173.168.233.26 (talk) 00:56, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

No, that would be speculation at this point. Calabe1992 (talk) 02:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't be speculation because auditions for the next season is already announced. There isn't however any real news for the coming season, so we'll have to wait until there is some news about it before we add that section. Hzh (talk) 09:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Spain broadcast American Idol

In Spain, laSexta2 broadcast American Idol in Prime Time (Saturday-Sunday, 22h 30) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.173.35 (talk) 19:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

judges/presenters

can the list of judges/presenters on the bottom of that section of the page be changed into a chart containing information about not only what years each judge was on the show but what seasons, as well? Such as here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.212.100 (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

chart added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cberman101 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Ryan Seacrest

Ryan Seacrest has announced that he would leave the show in 2012, should I change it from (2002-present) to (2002-2012)? Atgn148 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC).

No such announcement, it's just speculation.Hzh (talk) 10:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Reducing article size

The article is getting too big, I estimate that 25k has probably been added to the article since the start of Season 10, although it has been reduced through various edits. 25k per season is far too much, and not really sustainable when there are more seasons to come. One thing that may be done is to remove unnecessary references, such as those for facts that are unlikely to be challenged. I'm going through the article to remove some of those which aren't important or may be replaced by other existing ones and hope to get it down a bit further before the next season starts. Hzh (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Infobox needs changing

The current infobox structure looks a bit awful - no offence to whoever designed it. But the fact is, the directed by bit goes onto the 2 lines and I think it's unnecessary to tell them "live shows" etc, they still directed part of the show, which part remains irrelevant. Secondly on the point of judges, every other page does not put slash present after the judges that are currently judging, so why does this page not follow that? Also, it should have the present judges at the top with the oldest present judge at the very top. For the past judges, I suggested putting Paula Abdul at the bottom because she left before anyone else, then Simon Cowell because he joined before Kara but left the same year as her and likewise with Ellen. If this makes no sense then look at my edits in comparison with the current edits. Finally, Gregg Gelfland is Gregg Gelfand according to IMDB and he was apart of the show from 2007 to 2010 and that's not stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JackJackUK (talk • contribs) 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

anyone? I'm told to do a discussion thread because my changes are reverted yet no-one wants to discuss it? This is possibly the most moronic system ever.JackJackUK (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

For these things, it doesn't bother me one way or another, although I would agree that the "present" for the year on the show is unnecessary. If you think "Gelfland" is in error, then it is perfectly correct to change it (and you are right that it is an error). In general I think it is good to give the most information in the most concise manner possible without cluttering up the page. I don't think listing whether they whether they directed the audition or live episode is excessive or clutters up the page, I think they are valid information. One director is missing - the first episode of American Idol was directed by Andy Scheer (not entirely sure, but I think that might be the only episode he directed, whether he should be put in or not depends on whether you think someone who directed only one episode should be listed). I have no preference on whether current personnel should be listed first or last, although putting the current ones first make some sense (others of course can have a different preference, and it is really just a matter of preference). Hzh (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok yep. I mean, it's just odd that this page doesn't follow every other talent competition page like The X Factor UK, The X Factor USA, Australia's Got Talent etc etc. I just think if people need to know they directed the audition shows, then a section can be made stating that, but cluttering it up by going on two lines doesn't make it look professional. JackJackUK (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Unless it is something that is specified should be done, there is no reason why a page for any show should follow what is done for any other shows. As I said, I don't find that having 2 lines clutters things up, this is basically your own preference, not about whether it looks professional or not. And no, you don't start a new section just for something that adds a couple of extra lines in the infobox. Generally you should wait until there is a consensus until you make any changes unless on one object to the change. Hzh (talk) 17:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Well that's not true that all shows shouldn't follow the same. All popular talent shows have infoboxes, have the same sort of information that reflects the show, and they have information on their judges, presenters and who broadcasts the show. All the talent show pages have various degrees of consistency and the judges dates should be one that is kept to. I don't see why this change can't be had. The 'present' is a silly addition that is reflected with the longer slash.JackJackUK (talk) 22:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't just say that something is not true without something concrete to back it up. Wiki has rules, unless you can show that it is a rule, don't argue about it. People often just copy one show to the next, and there is nothing more to that, it isn't necessarily better because other shows did it that way, don't behave like sheep.Hzh (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Ordering in infobox

I really have no interest in how the infobox is ordered, but I don't like completely illogical ordering. If the list of names is to be ordered according the who left first, then it's Paula, Simon, Ellen, Kara, followed by the 3 current judges who haven't yet left. If you want to list the current judges first, then it has to be ordered according to who left last - the 3 current judges who haven't yet left, then Kara, Ellen, Simon, Paula. It is completely illogical to say Paula should go first because she left earlier and then put the current judges on top. Hzh (talk) 02:11, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

What are you on about? Paula and Simon joined the panel first so they go first after the active judges, because Paula left before Simon (as because they have the same joining year, I looked at their departure year, and she left BEFORE Simon), she should go before, they joined the same year, so it's hardly illogical. I've changed nothing else so don't understand all this nonsense. Pretty senseless argument to be honest.JackJackUK (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Please spend just a few minutes thinking instead of making nonsense argument. What exactly is the rationale for the ordering? I see no rationale at all. America Idol isn't about Paula and Simon, how do they fit in with the rest? Why list current judges first at all, what is the rationale? You haven't a clue what you are doing or understand how ordering is done. You are essentially doing two different kinds of ordering in the same list. Hzh (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to see this is now being discussed here instead of continuous reverts on the article page. That said, you're both edit warring, and JackJackUK is definitely at 3RR at this point. Both editors should consider themselves warned for the last time. Settle your differences here and not by constantly reverting each other. --McDoobAU93 18:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, presenters and judges of all shows should be listed in chronological order beginning with the first people assocated with the show to who is on it now. That only makes sense. It looks very confusing to the reader how it stands right now. Another point is the years should be listed fully. For example as it stands now 2009-11, some people might not understand what that 11 stands for, not only does it not make sense but it makes the rest of the information look very sloppy to the eye. TVFAN24 (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to bother with the editing of the infobox (as I said, I have no interest in how they are ordered as long as they are logical), but your chronological list is wrong. Simon was the first judge to come on board, they then try to find other judges, I can try to find out whether Paula or Randy sign up next if you are interested. Hzh (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

TVFAN24 Please stop talking nonsense. How many more times do I need to say that they were listed in chronological order based on who's active and who's inactive. You do not need the 'present' part, anyone will know that a longer slash means they are ongoing anyway. It does not look confusing whatsoever, so stop using nonsense arguments because it follows the same, exact same, format as EVERY other talent show page. People are going to know that the 11 means 2011, it does not need the whole thing. For example, when you write a date such as 06/07/11, you shorten it mostly. So sorry to suggest that is just wrong. I am willing to compromise with Hzh on the above issue yes, but I don't get what TVFAN24 is going on about, and apologies for breaking the 3 Revert Rule. JackJackUK (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I see this on other pages, and as I've seen it done, is the most current judge(s) are ordered first, then below are the originals, ordered in the position they left. That's how I've seen it on other pages, and how I believe it should be done on this page as well. Musicfreak7676 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree Musicfreak7676. JackJackUK (talk) 11:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Panelist awards

I think that mentioning the types of awards that each judge has received in the lead (Grammy, Golden Globe, Emmy) introduces puffery. Would deleting these award mentions in that section be satisfactory to all of the users? Thanks, Bulldog73 ^talk da contribs _{go rando} 23:46, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I for one would be in favor of deleting them. I find them unnecessary and tiresome, people who want to know about the achievement of the judges can just follow their links. But if others feel that those awards need to be mentioned, then just move them down to the judges section. Hzh (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Vandal Alert

Hello All!

I just wanted to let you all know that the host was changed from Ryan Seacrest to Kyle Ratner by at unregistered computer at 19:21, 14 February 2012. If a vandal is intent on trying to change a name, he will probably do it again so just be on the look out. Just wanted to point that out and any other vandalism must be stopped in less then the three hours it took for someone to catch this. Thanks for your consideration.

Metsfreak2121 (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

To be (present) or not to be (present)

Believing this had been settled previously, although I can't find a record of it in the archives, it looks like it needs to be discussed. Do we or do we not include the years for any cast/judge/producer who has been with the show since its inception? We appear to have one editor who believes this is normal, although I found a number of previous edits suggesting it's not the case, including one where the edit summary seems to indicate otherwise. To that end, and to have a record, what is everyone's opinion about including date information for people who started with and are still with the show? --McDoobAU93 19:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The dates are fine, but we do not need present put after every date for people who are active. It makes the infobox look silly, and it's common sense that people who have a date such as (2007–), that they are ongoing/active/present, as no date is listed. Moreover, the fact present people are listed first also emphasises the unnecessary need for the physical word to be included. It should be left how it was - without the word. JackJackUK (talk) 13:01, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your opinion, but we need 'present'. It would in fact look silly if it were (2007–), as it would look like just the year & an unnecessary dash, which looks very informal. All the articles have (2007–present), except for the few that have recently been wrongfully changed.  MegastarLV  (talk)

I think you may be partially mistaken ... check out Britain's Got Talent, The Voice and The X Factor for shows similar to American Idol that have cast/presenters that have been with the show since they started. Or, to stay in the Idol realm, there's also Canadian Idol and Australian Idol. Would you be able to present some examples of the articles you've seen, perhaps, for comparison? --McDoobAU93 18:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. I fixed them now. But take a look at America's Funniest Home Videos, The Price Is Right (U.S. game show), CBS This Morning, Good Morning America, ABC World News, Family Feud, Wipeout (2008 U.S. game show), Fear Factor, Saturday Night Live, The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and basically all other related articles. The 'present' is used indeed, & it's been there since. I have no idea who is starting to remove it, nor why it's being removed in the first place. You may also want to take a look in the infoboxes of all television articles, as the shows that currently air have 'present' in the 'Last aired'/'Original run' parameter, a rule followed under Template:Infobox television.  MegastarLV  (talk)

I think we might be talking on different points. I have no problem with the addition of "present" when a beginning year is given, but my bigger question was whether or not we include years at all for any cast members who have been with the show since it started. --McDoobAU93 22:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a different topic, but I'll address it anyway. If they have been on a show since it premiered, the years should not be included as long as they are still currently on the show.  MegastarLV  (talk)

We include the years if:

1. They were on the show when it premiered, but left afterwards (include show premiere year & the year they left).

2. They are currently on the show, but started a different year (include their starting year & 'present').

3. They started a different year, & left sometime afterwards (include their starting & ending years).

 MegastarLV  (talk)

I don't get why you can walse in and start altering the pages and tell ME to go to talk page to discuss when the pages have always not included present for entertainment shows. Each page is different so just because one follows another, doesn't mean we need it. The present is unnecessary and not needed, don't force your changes on other people. Clearly, it's not an issue as it's no-one else seems interested, so leave it how it was. JackJackUK (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Time-out ... Megastar came here because I asked about it and they gave their reasoning and cited examples. Personally, I tend to agree that "present" is OK when someone joined the show mid-way through its run. It sounds like Megastar and I agree that there's no need to add any year info for cast/presenters who have been with the show since day 1 (like Seacrest and Randy Jackson). It does make it cleaner and easier to read. As a second example, we don't include a blank space after someone's birthdate on an article about a living person. --McDoobAU93 16:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Well I don't think it's necessary to have present as the slash with no year represents the person is ongoing, so we don't need the physical word to say it, it really isn't hard to establish, and neither do people such as Howabout90.JackJackUK (talk) 17:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

No one else seems interested. That is very true. Just because only one editor (User:Howabout90) agrees with you doesn't mean you automatically revert to the format you want. I don't recall having 'present' being added by editors, but I do recall 'present' already being there when I joined Wikipedia (and possibly way before that). I'm only reverting back to THE format because someone has started to remove 'present' from infoboxes. The 'prior consensus' (of having 'present' removed) cannot be found anywhere. I doubt that ever existed. Where exactly is it?  MegastarLV  (talk)

power voting?

what is power voting? is it one person voting more than once? then it should say that, because power voting must be a neologism. 71.194.44.209 (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Power voting is someone voting a large number of times (i.e. many thousands of times) using technical enhancements. Since you are allowed to vote multiple times in Idol, it is possible to dial vote a couple of hundred times a night, and that is considered OK. Idol however also states that it doesn't allow power vote, and they would discard votes by power diallers. Problem is that it is possible to text vote many thousands of times, and Idol has never clarified why that is allowed, but not power dialler. Hzh (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Season 12

Can someone start a section with incoming news of season 12 there relasing citiyes next week — Preceding unsigned Buoydog (talk) 01:36, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Too early. Audition cities are not listed here in any case, only in article for individual season. Hzh (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

That is why someone needs to make a page for the next season — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buoydog (talk • contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's usually created when the current season finishes. Hzh (talk) 14:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok so in a few weeks correct --BuoyDog (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

J. Lo season 12

Jennefer Lopez has been questioning coming back for season 12. She said her kids were getting older and she missed her old prforming and things. If she will come back is yet unknown --BuoyDog (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Everything which has not yet happened are unknown. It is unknown if I will be a judge on American Idol next year. There is no need in Wikipedia to list every infinite unknown, nor is celebrity gossip or idle speculation appropriate in a Wikipedia article. --Jayron32 13:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Judges for 2012?

I noticed that Randy, Jennifer, and Tyler were listed as leaving the show this year and being replaced with Katy Perry, Lady Gaga, and Jimmy Iovine? This is either a joke or unconfirmed rumors because no where else on this page does it mention it again or even have a source nor on their separate wikipedia pages. 24.5.190.156 (talk) 09:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Just rumors and gossip, nothing more. A reliable source that confirms their appointment as judges is necessary, and without them, simply undo those edits if you see them.Hzh (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Hint: One of the new 4 judges in not famous but is a singer, songwriter — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZoggleZoom (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)